Ditocoaf wrote:This seems like a good option... I would definitely try a few games, and if there's a good possibility I'd like it and keep playing. It'd be a much slower game, but people already play no-cards adjacent, so that's not really an issue. It would require radically different strategies, which is why I like it so much. You could watch a group of armies advancing turn by turn. You couldn't take an area just by amassing one huge centralized force, instead it would be smarter to attack on all sides, to avoid counter-attacks... it might be more realistic in that respect.

A very emphatic yes to this idea.

YES, for all the reasons you stated. Especialy the part about it being more realistic. More like the kind of ''RISK'' they play in the war rooms. A slow motion race, where you can see everything coming. Now if you could manage a way to eliminate the dice from the game, you would have a pure form of strategic conquest. akin to ''chess''. I suppose it could be done with a mathmaticle formala that would simply take in to account the number of forces in the fight. You can even have stronger armies than others. because of various reasons such as troop freshness, or even where the are from. Some armies are just better fighters. All in all, ...it is a wonderful idea.

If you want to try it out, feel free to pm me. I want as many people as possible to be able to test it out

Ditocoaf wrote:Woah... I just realized that I've completely misread this idea. I thought that it meant that you couldn't attack with a territ you just conquered... but upon re-reading, it seems that all this would do is make it so no one country can attack more than once. Which is kind of pointless, because you don't often attack multiple targets from the same country in any given turn -- you zig-zag around advancing armies to the territ you just conquered.

so my "yes" vote changes to a "no", as this would not change the game very much at all.

You dont play adj. much, do you. The strat. you mention works well with unlimited forts. which is what I normaly like to play. Adj. is part of the original hasbro rules. And plays a bit diff. Thats not bad, just diff.

FYI, the post you're quoting here was written before n00blet changed his proposal slightly.

n00blet wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

n00blet wrote:Due to popular demand, another AA game is now open for your gaming pleasure

The escalating game is about to finish up, and I loved those settings (not just because I'm going to win )

It's kind of like reverse fog of war....you get a lot MORE info than normal. You get to see your opponents maneuvering about for position, which is normally not possible in escalating because you have to protect people so much. You also get to make large attacks without fear of hanging someone so you can use strategies that never get employed in regular escalating.

The whole thing is slower paced- watching troops advance, waiting for the right time to strike, etc. And it doesn't seem to be as dependent on luck because having a set with 3 cards or missing a set with 4 cards is not likely to change the game. Cash in order no longer matters, board position and strategy become much more dominant.

I would like to see a high ranking adjacent attack game just to make sure it doesn't turn into a protective stale mate.

switchblade wrote:Adjacent Attacks would be awesome, but then what about Unlimited Attacks? Plus, in the end, it would take away from the Risk Experience.

I would suggest maybe MAP with Adjacent Attacks instead.

We're suggesting this as an option you can choose to use or not, like whether to use unlimited or adjacent reinforcements. So you could make Adjacent Attacks games, or you could make normal attack games.

At the time this was originally suggested, from May to June 2008, there was a lot less support for the idea due to an unclear statement of the idea, joking poll terms, and various misconceptions with respect to it. So, at Ditocoaf's suggestion, I have reset the poll with 3 very clear choices. If you have already voted, please vote again so I can more easily tally interest/disinterest.

Immediately before being reset the poll read as follows:

What do you think about Adjacent Attacks?

You may select 1 optionGreat Idea! Give it to me now!----------------------------------------- 17 votes----------17%I think this would be kind of fun....I might try it.----------------- 30 votes----------31%It doesn't matter to me either way.----------------------------------- 7 votes-----------7%

I'm sure there are new xml treats that I don't know about, but I'm pretty sure it would not be possible to create and adjacent attacks map. When you conquer a territory you inherit that territory's attack routes, so you can continue attacking across the board. I suppose this COULD be installed as an XML feature instead of a game option, but I think it makes much more sense as a game option. It would be fun on all maps, and the gameplay is very different from normal. It's at least as different as FOW, even though that may seem impossible at first.

A speed adjacent attacks game would be great....but I don't know if a test game would work well. There have already been 3 incidents of people accidentally breaking the rules, twice to break someone's continent. In a speed game, such "mistakes" would be even more unfair and more likely to happen. So I think I will sit out any speed AA unless it is actually a game option so people cannot break the rules.

sully800 wrote:I'm sure there are new xml treats that I don't know about, but I'm pretty sure it would not be possible to create and adjacent attacks map. When you conquer a territory you inherit that territory's attack routes, so you can continue attacking across the board. I suppose this COULD be installed as an XML feature instead of a game option, but I think it makes much more sense as a game option. It would be fun on all maps, and the gameplay is very different from normal. It's at least as different as FOW, even though that may seem impossible at first.

Correct - can't be done in current XML.

sully800 wrote:A speed adjacent attacks game would be great....but I don't know if a test game would work well. There have already been 3 incidents of people accidentally breaking the rules, twice to break someone's continent. In a speed game, such "mistakes" would be even more unfair and more likely to happen. So I think I will sit out any speed AA unless it is actually a game option so people cannot break the rules.

Yeah - I guess it's tricky to remember which game is which - if we had the ability to put Custom tags on each game - then that would be cool - and would display where the tourney tag does.

sully800 wrote:I would like to see a high ranking adjacent attack game just to make sure it doesn't turn into a protective stale mate.

Don't they already do that more often than not???

High ranking games currently involve a lot of protection. Such protection is not needed in AA and would cause a stale mate. I would like to see a few high ranking AA games to make sure the tactics don't play out like normal to create an unbreakable build situation.

Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

True... but his description is close, and makes sense. In fact, if you were playing Fog of War, the only territs you could attack would be those that you can see at the beginning of your turn. He doesn't say that you can always attack them, just that they're the only ones you can attack.

Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

You are right Lancehoch. The FoW description misses an important part of the proposal. The one that says that a player cannot attack from newly conquered territories. Then better to come back to the original description.